[lkml]   [2005]   [Jun]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] deinline sleep/delay functions
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 02:11:11AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Russell King <> wrote:
> > Rejected-by: Russell King 8)
> >
> > The reason is that now we're unable to find out if anyone's doing
> > udelay(100000000000000000) which breaks on most architectures.
> >
> > There are a number of compile-time checks that your patch has removed
> > which catch such things, and as such your patch is not acceptable.
> > Some architectures have a lower threshold of acceptability for the
> > maximum udelay value, so it's absolutely necessary to keep this.
> I don't recall seeing anyone trigger the check, and it hardly seems worth
> adding a "few kb" to vmlinux for it?

Maybe we can have both - would the space saving be achieved by just moving
mdelay and ssleep out of linux/delay.h and not touching asm-i386/delay.h?

Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux -
maintainer of: 2.6 Serial core
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-06-30 11:49    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans